Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 240

RESPONSE to Motion re 233 MOTION to Amend/Correct 189 Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Order/Judgment,,, DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER [DKT 189] filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
100 S.

4th

Street

Hamilton, MI 59840
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Pro Se Plaintfff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

) Cause 9: 1I cv-] I -64-DWM-JCL

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)

v.

)

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

RESPONSE TO

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

DEFENDANT LEE

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

IN RE: PROTECTED

BOONE KARLBERG, PC,

)

INFORMATION

)
Comes now Spreadbury with reply to Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. with respect
to request to obtain privileged information from a City Government.
Brief in Support
City requested confidential, privileged information from Plaintiff former health
provider, Riverfront Counseling Hamilton MI, under investigation for release.
1

Plaintiff Reply to LEE: protected information

Cause 9: ll-CV-1l-64-DWM-JCl

February 28, 2012

In Doc.# 223 before this court Lee requests privileged info in 11 pg. 1. Counsel
for Lee disregards Order from this court (Doc. #181) November 30, 2011 which
segregates the aforementioned into two trials, and Defendant unincorporated City
is not "co-Defendant" (11 pg. 2 Doc. #233) with Lee. As Lee pleads for extension,
granted from Doc. # 181 Order for 90 days, knew or should have known that Lee,
City not co-defendants in aforementioned case for defamation inter alia.
District Court erred in granting access to Plaintiff protected health information to a
government, Defendant City Amendment 4 US Constitution. The private papers of
an individual are to be protected from government search US v. Miller 425 US at
442 (1976). Plaintiff further avers protection under the Privacy Act 5 USC§SS2 a,
b; illPPA ACT 45 CFR§ 160-164; relies upon this Honorable Court to uphold these
federal statutes, constitutional right in cause for 42 USC§ 1983, defamation in
aforementioned Katz v. US 389 US at 353 (1967).
Lee is asking court to intrude into Plaintiff zone of privacy in violation of 4th
Amendment US Constitution to "share" information improperly granted to a
government Defendant in a separate matter Hoffa v. US 385 US at 301-302 (1966)

citing Boydv. United States 116 US 616 (1886), Amendment 4 US Constitution.
Within Doc. #223 Defense Counsel Jeffrey B. Smith esq. did not cite any court
authority, federal statute which precludes this court to fmd in Lee's favor.

2

Plaintiff Reply to LEE: protected information

Cause 9: ll-CV-11-64-0WM-JCL

February 28, 2012

While the Plaintiff fully understands that this Honorable court in violation of28
USC§455 et. seq. for recusal, made precedent in aforementioned by ordering
financial sanction on an IFP party, made all efforts to aggravate harass a disabled
party to this case; requested court representation, information will show a fully
employed, capable individual who became disabled due to collective actions of
Lee, the Defendants in the amended complaint (Doc. #10) to deprive rights.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(2) (ii), 45 apply to privileged information;
physical, mental condition precluded as evidence, in pleadings; violated by
Defendant City in aforementioned. Plaintiff did not waive rights, as court
contended by filing aforementioned Sibbach v. Wilson Co. Inc. 312 US 1 (1941).
Defendant Lee's negligence to fact check, edit, report to public, and publish false
information defamatory to Plaintiff, and fail to correct is basis of case per
Honorable court order (Doc. #181).
Lee liable for NIED as serious or severe emotional distress (ED) was foreseeable
consequence of Defendant Lee Newspaper's negligent act(s) which include
publishing false information, failing to properly correct false information as
presented to Lee Turner v. BNSF 338 F. 3d 1058 (1h Cir, 2003). As counsel for a
Defendant Newspaper publisher Lee, no special privilege is given to invade the
right and liberty of Plaintiff in reporting, or answering complaint in
aforementioned Associated Press v. NLRB 301 US 103 (1937). Lee engaged in
3

Plaintiff Reply to LEE: protected information

Cause 9: 11·CV·ll·64·DWM·JCL

February 28, 2012

highly unreasonable conduct, extreme departure from the standards of investigative
reporting ordinarily adhered to by reasonable publishers in writing about Plaintiff

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 388 US J 30 (J 967).
Honorable Court is given notice ofFRCP 45,37,26 Controlling Court Authority,
US Constitutional right, US Federal Statute prohibiting release of privileged
information irrelevant to Lee Defense, requested of this court. Court is also given
notice Plaintiff will be unaffected in case or character as to this decision before this
court. Lee states no statute, controlling authority, right to privileged information
and request for privileged information from a government party should be rejected.
Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(dX2XE) US District Court Rules Montana, I certify that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 623 words excluding title page, this compliance.

Respectfully submitted this

~day of Fe

,2012

BY: ----~~~~~--~~------------Mich

E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff

4